1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JACQUIN ENRIQUE TAYLOR, Case No. 3:21-cv-00434-ART-CSD

4 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 5 PERRY RUSSELL, 6 Defendant. 7 8 Pro se Plaintiff Jacquin Enrique Taylor brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 9 § 1983 alleging that Defendant Perry Russell violated his Eighth Amendment 10 rights through deliberate indifference to unsafe prison conditions by failing to 11 follow or enforce COVID-19 safety protocols. Before the Court is the Report and 12 Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate 13 Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 33), recommending that Defendant’s Motion for 14 Summary Judgment (ECF No. 30) be granted. Plaintiff did not oppose 15 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff had until October 6, 2023 16 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this 17 reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will grant 18 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 19 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 20 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where 21 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 22 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 23 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. 24 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 25 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 26 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 27 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 28 1 || the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 2 || record in order to accept the recommendation’). 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review 4 || and is satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney 5 || recommends granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment because 6 || Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a complaint with 7 || this Court. (ECF No. 33 at 5.) Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant’s 8 || Motion for Summary Judgment pointing to any evidence of exhaustion. The 9 || Court therefore agrees with Judge Denney. Having reviewed the R&R and the 10 || record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 11 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Denney’s Report and 12 || Recommendation (ECF No. 33) is accepted and adopted in full. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary 14 || Judgment (ECF No. 30) is GRANTED. 15 The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 16 17 DATED THIS day of March 2024. 18 19 Ap. ‘ losed Jer 20 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28